Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[wunfellaff]

I would call you a liar and ask you to prove this but given your previous few efforts tonight then I will just leave it with the simple liar tag.

Missed the "i" in "tag" tedi, filter must be working.....

[The_Kincardine]

Can someone explain in laymans terms how a share holding of 1% could give someone that much influence?

Bennett it does't. From what I've read (and not on the front page of The Record on my way home) his MO seems to be this:

1. As a strategy, picking up shares in poorly-performing companies.

2. Using his shareholding to ask 'difficult' questions at AGMs.

3. Getting other minority shareholders to unite together to change what's happening at board-level.

4. Using shareholder rules in a creative way to ask for executive changes.

Everything I have read about the guy makes me think that his approach to corporate governance is just what we need at Rangers. OK so sure he only has 1% but, on his record, he can use that to improve companies so I think it's a good thing.

[The_Kincardine]

^^^ worse sense of humour since a transexual posted on here imo.....

Wunf......for the 143rd time I'll tell you that I am to literalistic for these we asides.

[aofjays]

I would call you a liar and ask you to prove this but given your previous few efforts tonight then I will just leave it with the simple liar tag.

When did you get so bloody boring? All you seem to do now is lie and deny.

[flyingrodent]

I would call you a liar and ask you to prove this but given your previous few efforts tonight then I will just leave it with the simple liar tag.

I'd hardly expect you to admit it, but I think non-Rangers readers will spot the frequency with with Sir Dave gets a booting from you, your pals and your extended support, compared to the amount of time you spend beeling about bloggers, hacks, the SPL, Peter Lawell and anyone else unfortunate enough to attract your attention.

And I'm glad Kincardine welcomes this new investor. May there be many more corporate governance experts just like him in the pipeline because if you've enjoyed the last few weeks' boardroom shenanigans, there's going to be a lot more where that came from.

[wunfellaff]

Bennett it does't. From what I've read (and not on the front page of The Record on my way home) his MO seems to be this:

1. As a strategy, picking up shares in poorly-performing companies.

2. Using his shareholding to ask 'difficult' questions at AGMs.

3. Getting other minority shareholders to unite together to change what's happening at board-level.

4. Using shareholder rules in a creative way to ask for executive changes.

Everything I have read about the guy makes me think that his approach to corporate governance is just what we need at Rangers. OK so sure he only has 1% but, on his record, he can use that to improve companies so I think it's a good thing.

Creating a hundred companies to exert influence isn't a worry then ?

Wunf......for the 143rd time I'll tell you that I am to literalistic for these we asides.

Sorry, was still in "putting down box office poster" mode in gen non.......

[The_Kincardine]

So you use the word 'cuntpany' and expect a reasonable reply?

To be honest it was a rhetorical question, but yes. Yes I do.

Asking about 'The Company' would get you a reasoned reply. Asking about "The Cuntpany" marks you as a wee fanny.

[Apache Don]

There was nothing collective about the poor form. It was the exclusive work of Bad Day.

If the greater new rangers community wish to accept collective responsibility, for the actions/pronunciations of their individual members, just go with the flow man. Maybe it's the beginning of a new found humility and acceptance of past transgressions and insulting behavior aimed at minority groups......

[The_Kincardine]

Creating a hundred companies to exert influence isn't a worry then ?

Sorry, was still in "putting down box office poster" mode in gen non.......

Wunf, where did this "Creating a hundred companies to exert influence" come from? I am happy to continue this discussion as long as you give up this bluff that you read it in John Menzies on your way home from work.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

Can someone explain in laymans terms how a share holding of 1% could give someone that much influence?

I believe that if they can spread the ownership of that 1% between a certain number of holding companies or some such financial entity, they can massively and disproportionately increase their influence, forcing votes to be taken, meetings to be called, etc.. Just one more example of how money people are different to normal humans.

[The_Kincardine]

I believe that if they can spread the ownership of that 1% between a certain number of holding companies or some such financial entity, they can massively and disproportionately increase their influence, forcing votes to be taken, meetings to be called, etc.. Just one more example of how money people are different to normal humans.

That's a half-truth. Rodent or Wunf will explain better. They get all their information from the front page of The Record........apparently.

[Apache Don]

Bennett it does't. From what I've read (and not on the front page of The Record on my way home) his MO seems to be this:

1. As a strategy, picking up shares in poorly-performing companies.

2. Using his shareholding to ask 'difficult' questions at AGMs.

3. Getting other minority shareholders to unite together to change what's happening at board-level.

4. Using shareholder rules in a creative way to ask for executive changes.

Everything I have read about the guy makes me think that his approach to corporate governance is just what we need at Rangers. OK so sure he only has 1% but, on his record, he can use that to improve companies so I think it's a good thing.

From what I've read, his main mission on influencing boards, is to get as much of any profit generated, paid out as dividends to shareholders, rather than reinvested in company. In the instance of a football club, this would translate as no fkg warchest!

[WhiteRoseKillie]

I'll go along with Bennett. Pretty poor form from us. We shouldn't be using casual homophobia.

"Us"? "We"?

Surely you're not wrapping that wee fud up into some rangers "family" that must be defended at all times? I thought better of you, tbh. There's plenty of Killie fans on here, and IRL, that I don't get on that well with. I certainly wouldn't excuse or defend discriminatory language from any of them.

As for Bennett, I applaud his laid-back attitude at this post. It makes a change from the screaming strops he's taken at equally offensive posts from others. They weren't rangers posters, mind, but it's a start....

[bennett]

Bennett it does't. From what I've read (and not on the front page of The Record on my way home) his MO seems to be this:

1. As a strategy, picking up shares in poorly-performing companies.

2. Using his shareholding to ask 'difficult' questions at AGMs.

3. Getting other minority shareholders to unite together to change what's happening at board-level.

4. Using shareholder rules in a creative way to ask for executive changes.

Everything I have read about the guy makes me think that his approach to corporate governance is just what we need at Rangers. OK so sure he only has 1% but, on his record, he can use that to improve companies so I think it's a good thing.

Cheers, as you say this might not be a bad thing.

[flyingrodent]

Really?

What are you fishing for here? expect me to defend Craig Whyte? no the mans a dodgy cnut and I hope he gets banged up, bottom line is Rangers were ok till they got horsed out of the CL, he should have pulled the plug at this point, or at least sold off the entire squad and played the rest of the season with kids, he did not, he deliberately stopped paying the bills, nobody would give him finance because of the FTT, this was not Whytes fault it was Murray`s fault, i hope they both rot in hell.

2 Things, it was Murray and his cohorts that were to blame, they took the decision to take the club down the disastrous EBT scheme, legal yes but in hindsight still disastrous, selling to Craig Whyte was just another selfish act and as for his statement about being duped, what a lot of shite.

If they had submitted the letters it would not have made the slightest bit of difference to the tax situation or the registration of players, more stupidity from Murray then.

Virtually the whole of Ibrox was singing "fcuk murray" at Ibrox today so I think that argument is won too.

How many more quotes would you like? 3 of them were to your posts, your memory is obviously selective.

Oh yeah it really shows how much I love David Murray

Now when you are ready I await your apology, unless you would like more quotes of course, plenty more where these came from.

The point wasn't that you aren't annoyed at Sir Dave and Craigy Whyte, as you well know.

The point was that you "have to be poked and prodded and provoked" into laying the blame where it belongs, with a slight hint that when you do, it's plainly an irritating distraction from raging at the SPL or the bloggers or whoever.

If I were sad enough to go Googling all those quotes, would I find that you'd been prodded into them by folk reminding you that your woes stem almost entirely from your former owners, rather than from - say - the BBC or the Daily Record?

I think I might.

[The_Kincardine]

"Us"? "We"?

Surely you're not wrapping that wee fud up into some rangers "family" that must be defended at all times?

Get off your high horse and think what I said. My initial response was to suggest I reported him rather than support him. Why? Because Bears shouldn't be using casual homophobia.

[flyingrodent]

The point is that you are lying out of your arse, I have never had to poked and prodded into letting rip at Murray, you are just making this up as you go along.

You used to be a decent poster but ever since the tribunal, your bitterness has been on overload, the decision obviously affected you deeply.

There's a lot of this "you used to be decent" stuff around these days. I think it's because not much is happening and positions are settled, and it's not really an enticing prospect to join in the four thousandth "Yer deid-No we're no'" argument.

What we need is a big, tasty, bullshitty disaster that enrages everybody equally, even if just for nostalgia reasons.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

The point wasn't that you aren't annoyed at Sir Dave and Craigy Whyte, as you well know.

The point was that you "have to be poked and prodded and provoked" into laying the blame where it belongs, with a slight hint that when you do, it's plainly an irritating distraction from raging at the SPL or the bloggers or whoever.

If I were sad enough to go Googling all those quotes, would I find that you'd been prodded into them by folk reminding you that your woes stem almost entirely from your former owners, rather than from - say - the BBC or the Daily Record?

I think I might.

The point is that you are lying out of your arse, I have never had to poked and prodded into letting rip at Murray, you are just making this up as you go along.

You used to be a decent poster but ever since the tribunal, your bitterness has been on overload, the decision obviously affected you deeply.

I think the point that Rodent is missing here is that by the time you met that bloke in the pub, Tedi, all the shite about Murray and Whyte had already hit the fan. By the time Okey-Dokey Day rolled round, and we had an influx of new rangers-supporting posters, the Party Line was already well-established.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

Get off your high horse and think what I said. My initial response was to suggest I reported him rather than support him. Why? Because Bears shouldn't be using casual homophobia.

I don't like or trust horses - half a ton of dogmeat with a brain the size of a walnut, imho.

Is it only Berrz that should be avoiding homophobia? Are there still casuals round your way? Are other forms of discrimination fine with the ibrox peepul?

And on a lighter note - I've found a way to stop a runaway horse....

Back the fecker!

[Monkey Tennis]

"Us"? "We"?

Surely you're not wrapping that wee fud up into some rangers "family" that must be defended at all times? I thought better of you, tbh. There's plenty of Killie fans on here, and IRL, that I don't get on that well with. I certainly wouldn't excuse or defend discriminatory language from any of them.

I've got to say WRK, the last thing Kincardine was doing was excusing or defending Bad Day.